It seems as if your correspondents replying to our authors' letter ('We all want kids to enjoy reading' July 27) have had a spot of trouble with their reading. Our letter stated quite clearly that we are in favour of the teaching of 'basic phonics'. What is at issue is the question of whether the intensive, exclusive and expensive teaching of phonics results in more children learning to read for meaning. There is no evidence to suggest that it does.

Tuesday, 24 July 2012

Reading around on the net, I think there is some evidence to suggest that we're moving into a new phase in this drawn-out world economic crisis. No matter how many meetings the politicians from the countries with the largest economies have, they find that both the particular crises of their own countries' banks and their own countries' sovereign debt cannot be solved. I take it that capitalism (or capitalists) don't have a strategy to deal with this because the fundamental motive power of capitalism is competition. This is what has taken finance capital into a territory never known before: many, many trillions of debt. The only question being asked by these major debtors seems to be who is going to lose the most next?

The problem for us lay punters watching all this is that the main media outlets can't and won't run collapse scenarios past us for us to see what might happen. If they did, they would be accused of being apocalyptic or even of bringing on the apocalypse merely by mentioning it. The giveaway seems to be that there are people already 'advising investors' what to do 'when' the system does collapse. These people run a scenario that sees a succession of defaults, banks and countries unable to pay the interest on their loans. The consequence of this, it seems, would be whole sections of the world economy unable to pay wages and unemployment benefits and pensions. Governments have very few options in this scenario:
1. They go on feeding the army and the police enough to try and keep starving, sick people from raiding shops.
2. They establish martial law.
3. They invent new local currencies.
4. They blame the poor, the migrants and the foreigners for what's happened.
5. They draft in favoured oligarchs to run the bits of capitalism still standing which enables them to mop up chunks of the 'failed' bits at knock-down prices.

These five points are of course recognisable as forms of fascism. As I write this from London, UK, this scenario seems highly unlikely. The crisis is presented to us as something happening around the periphery of Europe: Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece and yet the immediate cause of it all is something that came about because of the lending and buying lunacies invented in New York and London. Surely, at some point the Lehman Brothers sequence of events is going to happen again? How can it not? After all, we have to keep reminding ourselves that money has no value. It is a system of trust between participants which enables everything to be made 'equivalent' - a haircut can be made equal to some food, or to a length of time of a particular kind of work, and so on. On the other hand, 'value' (or real worth) lies in our human capacities working on materials and/or the machines and systems we've invented to handle materials and/or finished goods. We have to remind ourselves that these capacities and materials don't change overnight when a bank goes bust. All that's happened is that the system that was invented to regulate those values has stopped working. It's not the values or the worth of things that have changed. All of us (me too) find this really hard to get our heads round because right from the time we could talk, value has been tied to money. This crisis is asking us to reconfigure our way of thinking about all this.

On the other hand, there is immense pressure for us to not reshape, rethink and reconfigure. Again and again, on the media, even in the mouths of honest people like Paul Mason, the crisis is presented to us as if money and value are the same thing. Put it this way, it is only the same thing if we let them tell it that way. In other words, when parts of the money system collapse, they will indeed try to prevent people from working, eating, going to school, using hospitals, collecting pensions and benefits. (That's one way of making money and value mean the same.) Yet, things of value will still be there: the land will still be there, the plant where the stuff we need will still be there, the raw materials will still be in the ground or on trees and millions will be forcibly kept idle, not allowed to get the food or produce the goods that they need in order for them and their dependants to survive. And, most importantly, our powers to think and make and do will still be ther! They will tell us that they have to prevent people from working and getting the things we need is because 'the banks have failed' or that 'there's no money left' or some such. But money is an illusion, a spectre paraded as something real, a real obstacle. But it will only be a money, which is not real, is just a system of trust between participants.

When they say all that, all they're doing is defending the arrangement that is capitalism. They are saying that this is the only system that can organise our lives - even as it collapses around our ears. There is only one real reason for defending it: because it delivers untold wealth and power to those that run it. So, even as whole areas sink into the mud, those that benefit the most will fight for it to survive intact.

I'm not privy to anything secret. No one on the inside (wherever that is) has tipped me the wink. I am talking here about what it looks like in July 2012. Maybe capitalism - and the armed force it can hire - can juggle these gargantuan debts long enough, while cutting wages sufficiently, for production to 'pick up' enough for the system to expand again. Clearly, some politicians seem to think this is possible. Or at least they tell us that they think it's possible.

However, I don't see how the companies and countries in debt to each other on such a vast scale, have the means by which to stop themselves going bust. At which point, it won't be a matter of whether someone might bail them out. Either those who are still rich won't bail them out, or won't be able to bail them out. That's the point when we see the basic standard of living of most people fall very sharply and when, I guess, those five points start kicking in.

That's when we find out whether people in places all over the world have the strength, resolve and wisdom to go back to the key question of who owns what is made? As long as it's possible to hold us all in thrall to the illusion of money, the answer is always that what we make is owned by those with money - which in itself has no value! In the crisis when money ceases to buy things, we might find it easier to see we should all own what is made and not allow a tiny minority of people to own most of it.

Friday, 20 July 2012

I have been following your blog and twitter feed with great interest in relation to first, fast and only phonics. I also read Helen Bromley's letter to you with great interest regarding the impact that phonics may be having in the Early Years.

For a number of years, I worked as a consultant for a Local Authority, involved in the roll out of Letters and Sounds to schools. From the beginning I, like you, was well aware that to get children to be fluent readers and writers, it would take far more than phonics. I was very clear to the schools I worked with that this must be done within a broad, rich, Literacy curriculum; not at the expense of real reading and purposeful writing activities as part of play based learning in the Early Years. I also worked closely with our Every Child A Talker and Early Years consultants to ensure a joined up approach with clear messages about what good Early Literacy practice, particularly in the Early Years, was. The work in schools proved very successful, with all schools seeing good benefits in their Early Years data as well as impact on children's oral storytelling and reading and writing for purpose and pleasure and development of the learning environment, including making and maintaining inviting book corners.

I was also aware that a large number of schools in our LA were using first, fast and only phonics, where some teachers had been given the idea that real books should not be introduced before several pages of text-only decodable texts could be mastered. [ When I say this, the Phonics people say, where's the evidence?! Your witnessing is the evidence! Ed. ] This, to me, seemed the complete opposite of what Early Reading should be about. After watching some of the sessions in schools, I was also concerned that this didn't follow the principles of what good Early Years practice should be and was worried about the distinct lack of real reading opportunities and, in some cases, lack of access to real books and reading. As Helen Bromley said in her letter, some of the teachers reported that they did not have time for daily read aloud sessions because they had to fit in phonics. I also saw many children who were becoming frustrated by being forced into phonics and handwriting before they were developmentally ready or who were 'set' for phonics; having to go to another classroom and being mixed with children from other year groups for very directed sessions that lasted much longer than their attention span was ready for. It concerned me that this may have a negative impact on their independence as learners and their enjoyment of reading as well as in their personal, social and emotional development.

I hope that you can carry on investigating, as you are, the impact that 'first, fast and only' may be having on our children, as I feel that it may lie even deeper than the effect on comprehension. I feel that children's independence as learners, natural inquisitveness and personal, social and emotional development may be affected by the narrowing down of the curriculum. [ This is a very important observation and perhaps it's something that UKLA could take up...Ed. ] The time pressures of accomodating extended and over-prescribed phonics sessions also seem to have a real impact on the opportunities for self initiated learning and the ability of teachers to follow the needs and interests of their children more fully. As we are becoming increasingly aware though, comprehension is also clearly an issue. A group of 'able' Year 2 children I read with in a first fast and only phonics programme school I started working with could decode perfectly a Michael Morpurgo book about a farm visit, but when questioned, could not tell me what a lamb was - the nearest guess, from a picture cue of a newborn bloodstained lamb, being "when a sheep has hurt itself really badly". My concern here was that the child had no idea, from using the context or any wider reading skills, the word class, let alone the meaning. [ This is precisely what we are saying about being able to 'decode' but able to understand. Ed. ]

I have since returned to the classroom, teaching in Reception and as Early Years and Literacy Co-ordinator in an inner-city school which was in notice to improve, to 'practice what I preach', as I feel, like many others who have written to you, that this is the only way to reflect fully upon what works best. Thankfully, my class that have just finished Reception have achieved the highest results in the school data history across the EYFSP (moderated by the LA). More importantly, through a broad, rich Literacy Curriculum, they have developed a love of reading and writing for purpose and pleasure. Every day we have an open storytime for children to share their favourite books, stories, songs and rhymes from the classroom book corners (we have the advantage of a double classroom so have fiction and non-fiction areas - always well stocked and books changed regularly through consultation with the children about what they would like and are interested in) and from home. We have at least five books brought in from home to share everyday and YouTube videos of your poems and 'Bear Hunt' are on the children's choice lists nearly every day. We also use websites, such as the fantastic ITV signed stories site (www.signedstories.com), to share at school and with parents as well as trips to and information about local libraries to give parents and children better access to good quality texts at home. My nursery nurse and I also bought each child a book for Christmas and at the end of summer term (this worked out at only £1 per child through the great pack deals available from the Book People), as we are aware that many of our children do not have access to a wide range of books at home. We recently had an Ofsted inspection and, as well as the school coming out of category, practice in the Early Years was reported as outstanding, with the EYs inspector commenting strongly on children's attainment and love of learning.

I feel that these children are now well equipped to have an excellent start in their journey as learners and as rounded readers and as Ofsted commented: 'Pupils are eager readers, enjoy reading aloud and talk animatedly about their favourite authors and books'. This has been due to a real push on the reading for pleasure agenda, including giving all classes £100 to spend on improving book corners; having a Reading week culminating in the celebration of World Book Day; installing listening centres in every classroom with quality audiobooks, so the children can listen to books read aloud; writing a read-aloud policy to ensure all teachers in the school dedicate time daily to read aloud to their class and regularly sharing books and ideas in assemblies and school newsletters - for example, sharing the story of one busy parent who worked three jobs and was rarely able to put her children to bed, so recorded a number of stories on a mobile phone so they could still hear her read each night. I am aware that these all seem like things that should be pretty standard and non-negiotiable in primary schools, but they are things that we have had to re-introduce as they were either squeezed out or not as high-priority as other directed initiatives in the past. Phonics is taught throughout the school, but in a sensible and moderated way that supports and is not at the expense of reading for purpose and pleasure; there is no point merely focussing on the skill if our children do not develop the will to read.[ Again, a vital point. Ed. ]

In September, I will be embarking on a new job where hopefully I will have more opportunities to help push the real reading agenda further. Before I leave, I am working with my school throughout the summer on having the library reinstalled as it was dismantled, prior to me working there, to make room for an extra classroom to set Year 6.

I look forward to following your progress and offer you my full support. I hope you will be the thorn in the side that will enable reason and clear thinking to win out and that your blog, and the contributions of others to it, gives teachers in the classroom the confidence to pursue what they believe in and know to be right for their children.

Here's a petition for 'writers and artists who produce books for children' who are opposed to what's being offered by the government in its latest package of curriculum and testing in English. If you feel you can sign, can you please write to me, Ed Wicke or Alan Gibbons.. We three are sponsoring it. We will send it to one of the main broadsheet newspapers and to Michael Gove.

My email is rosenmichael@hotmail.com

"We are writers and artists who produce books for children.

In our view, the proposed Draft Primary English Curriculum, the Phonics Screening Check at the end of Year 1, and the new Spelling, Punctuation and Grammar test at the end of Year 6 pose a threat to reading for pleasure in primary schools.

The recent Ofsted report 'Moving English Forward' made a specific recommendation to the government that it call on all schools to develop policies on reading for enjoyment. To date, there has been no such move by government. On the other hand, millions are being spent on systematic synthetic phonics programmes and training, subsidised by the government, although there is no evidence that such programmes help children understand what they are reading.

As a result, more school time will be devoted to reading as an academic, test-driven exercise; less time will be available for reading and writing for enjoyment. We deplore this state of affairs and consider that the quality of children's school lives is about to be altered for the worse.

We call on the government to implement the Ofsted recommendation on reading for pleasure, to withdraw the Phonics Screening Check and the SPAG test, and to reinstate mixed methods of initial reading methods (which include 'basic phonics' and real books)."

Thursday, 19 July 2012

The Reading for Pleasure Conference took place today under the auspices of Booktrust, The Reading Agency and the National Literacy Trust, hosted by Pearsons at their building in the Strand.

What follows are not minutes. Just some impressionistic thoughts.

1. The conference was chaired by the Independent's political correspondent and TV presenter, Steve Richards. He was able to put his finger on the salient political point with ease, speed and accuracy. That is: both New Labour and the Tories veer between two simultaneous policies: diktat from the centre and voluntarism. So, in education this pans out that the DfE lays down highly specific instructions in certain areas of education policy and then simultaneously puts up its hands and says, 'We don't want to lay down the law', in other areas.

In the area of literacy, this is glaringly apparent, in that there are government policies on specific methods and content of initial reading (government approved Systematic Synthetic Phonics schemes (SSP), enforced through a test (the Phonics Screening Check), specific content and implied method on spelling, punctuation and grammar, enforced through a test (SPAG, so-called, at the end of Year 6).

This is in stark contrast to the matter of implementing Ofsted's highly specific recommendation in 'Moving English Forward' that schools should develop policies on reading for enjoyment throughout the school. This is voluntary.

If you then compare the difference in money between the two aspects of government policy, then it's clear that something is being said about priorities, a point well made by Steve Richards. So, SSP is backed by government subsidy amounting to many millions and still rising while the whole reading for enjoyment movement is fobbed off with no new funding at all.

But something else needs to be said. Every teacher, no matter how keen to introduce policies on reading for enjoyment runs up against the realities of the test and exam regime. For a variety of reasons, most schools in most places interpret this as a requirement or demand to train children and school students in how to pass those tests and exams. The main method for this, since tests and exams were invented is to rehearse over and over again various aspects of those tests, typified by the slogan 'skill, drill and kill.'

This method - and almost anyone reading this will have experienced it as a school student, witnessed it as a parent, or taught it as a teacher - runs in direct opposition to the methods of 'reading for enjoyment'.

What this government has done is make this opposition even greater, as a consequence of the Phonics Screening Check and the SPAG test. There is no question whatsoever that the knock-on effect of these is that they will drive 'reading for enjoyment' to one side.

And, to remind ourselves, there is no evidence that intensive systematic synthetic phonics teaching will do better at delivering children who can read for meaning than children using 'mixed methods' which include basic phonics. There is no evidence that teaching spelling with word lists improves spelling. There is no evidence that teaching grammar improves writing.

However, there is evidence that children reading for enjoyment, practising self-selecting across a wide range of books and texts (eg from a library or home provision)does indeed improve reading for meaning, does indeed improve children's chances of benefiting from more years schooling.

In summary: the evidence-based programme of reading for enjoyment is voluntary. The non-evidence-based programme of phonics, spelling, grammar and punctuation is compulsory and backed with serious money.

2. There were some very interesting presentations on eg attitudes to reading, Bali Rai's panel of secondary school readers, a headteacher of school in Brighton who has implemented 'reading for pleasure' policies and so on.

a) the school students were extremely interesting about their reading habits but it slowly emerged that the library in the school was not really a sufficiently attractive or responsive place for them. This concerned me. It seemed to have the reputation of being 'nerdy', a place where you wouldn't really want to be seen, and the 'suggestions book' seemed to be not apparent to all of them.

b) the headteacher who presented on how he had turned his school into a reading for enjoyment school conceded that this hadn't improved writing. As he put it, he had assumed that creating this major change in the school would improve writing by 'osmosis'. He now thought that was not the case.

What follows, is not meant in any way to claim that I know why a jump in writing scores has not happened. It is just a hunch. I'm quite happy to be shot down on this.

So here's my hunch. The school placed a huge emphasis on making the reading for enjoyment linked to awards, prizes, naming of 'champions' and the like, and most of these seemed to be connected to the quantity of reading and, very little, as far as I could make out on the quality of reading.

My feeling was therefore that if you connect a reading for enjoyment programme across a whole school, connecting it to sheer volume of reading AND to rewards and awards decided by the authority of the school - no matter how kind or well-meaning - then the emphasis in the children's minds will not be on the two key aspects of reading that, I would say, would impact on writing: a) personal unravelling of meaning through silent reading b) open-ended, unrewarded, ungraded talk.

Far from being sloppy or un-rigorous, these two processes are key motors for children to absorb how continuous prose works, how most texts move between concrete and abstract, how texts next to each other invite children and all readers to make comparisons and contrasts.

Just as important is to build into reading for enjoyment are the key processes of open-ended browsing, categorising and self-selecting. To do this in school, you have to involve children very closely and systematically in choosing what books, how they should be distributed in school, borrowed.

Pretty nearly all of this should be de-coupled from reward systems which, as everyone knows work as negative reinforcement on the children who don't win them.

The reason why I've mentioned this is because the whole matter of 'reading for enjoyment' will need to be refined. That is precisely why the Ofsted recommendation could have such a profound impact, if it were implemented. That's to say, it would raise the level of debate and criticism about the different policies that people were thinking of implementing. If, on our side, we are saying that reading for enjoyment has an impact on reading for meaning AND writing, but this impact doesn't appear in some schools, then we have to be tough on ourselves and ask, why not? What aspects of the policy might not be giving the children and school students the very skills and capabilities that seem to be being achieved elsewhere?

In other words 'reading for enjoyment' is not just one method - as indeed the headteacher was excellent at pointing out - but many methods, many approaches. However, it may well be that though a method works well in getting children to read a lot, it may be subtly blocking off the key processes that will release meaning and textual methods to the readers.

Just received copies of 'Free Voluntary Reading' and 'The Power of Reading' by Stephen Krashen - definitive studies collating worldwide research on how children and school students exposed to a wide range of books, given time to do sustained silent reading, will show up every time as scoring high on any reading and writing test that authorities want to throw at them. In terms of comprehension, SSR will have a far greater effect than intensive systematic synthetic phonics. Mixed methods including basic phonics married to exposure to a wide range of books, and timetabled time for SSR (including browsing and choosing) , will always outscore.

I hope this will be at least part of the message going out from today's 'Reading for Pleasure' conference with Booktrust, National Literacy Trust and the Reading Agency.

I will write more about the Stephen Krashen's books and the conference later.

However, it is these two comments which I think indicate something quite sinister going on:

frindsbury
18 July 2012 1:02AM
Response to SirJoshuaReynolds, 17 July 2012 4:12PM
In principal I see the contributors are all crying out for the same thing- a decent mixed-sex, non-selective, non-faith comprehensive school for all the kids in the community including theirs- but the way to acheive it differs with the local circumstance. Greenwich kids (and parents) could not believe that kids in Kent have only 4 comprehensive schools to serve the entire county. The concept of compulsory single sex grammar schools for the top 23% entered by a knock out test is normal in Kent. There are swathes of the country where the only opt out from going to an Anglican school is by sending your kids to mass (and them being seen) so they can go to the Roman Catholic Comp.

I had served as governor in secondary, middle, first and infant schools and in the main it doesn't make a blind bit of difference- as you do not control the levers you need to implement real change. The curriculum is set by Whitehall at the lunatics whim, the capital finance is controlled by the LEA which in turn is throttled by Whitehall, running finance is fairly allocated by the LEA at a level they will admit is inadequate and dependant on the beauty contest called OFSTED. The appointment of a head is a critical governor decision- but the shortlist is controlled by LEA implementing Whitehall bidding. The intake is selfselecting- so cannot be balanced- and the drain on funding caused by special needs requirements distorts your choice of staff. The role of the Governor has been totally usurped.

As a governor you are one of many- new parent governors are under many delusions- many encouraged by the electoral process. Suffice to say, many are conservative in values and if not understanding the issue just vote with the head who asked them to stand. Some see it as opportunity to be useful on sports days and on school trips as indeed they are. Staff governors have to declare a conflict of interest and not vote on all the issues where their expertise would be valuable.

I had finished my term before my secondary school had to agree to academy status just to unlock enough cash to fix the roof.

So where does that leave parents that have the same principles as us. If free schools is the only crack in the system it has to investigated. I can never see such a group suceeding- it takes the commitment of a religious nut and the financial backing of a large organisation to lever out the money from government. And the steering committee must be on top of the job 365.25 days a year, nothing is how it seems and every line of text issued must be questionned. I think this is where the article should have started as every banana skin needs to be exposed. To be successful there need to be a lot of grey hairs.

Look at the task ahead. Preparing one child to fulfil their potential in a uncertain future is the normal experience of a parent. Take on the responsiblility for doing that for your neighbours kid- and another- and another- and another... With some, you are taking on the reponsibility to fulfil their emotional needs (which Goves parents failed totally to do)- some to keep them off drugs and alive to the age of 18- some to propel them to UCL or a top European University- some to handle the break up of their parents relationship and potential physical abuse- the responsibility is awesome. Eight hundred or so separate individuals. And it will need to be that number to offer a full post 16 choice. That is routine in a secondary school. In a state school the burden is shared by the LEA but in a free school the buck stops with you.

Sitting in a room- and putting up hands and compromising principles is the easy bit. A bland statement beloved by Gove. The reality is really beyond the ability of all- only the biggoted or religious nuts would believe they were capable. What is the alternative?

Recommend? (0)
Respond (0)
Report
Share

----------------

TJCDN2
18 July 2012 12:32AM
I have followed all the comments thus and the degree of malice has really saddened me.

I attended the meeting last night as well as 3 previous meetings. Earlier on within this process there was a sincere discussion about what options were open to the group to help ensure a high quality of education for all the children within the local community.

The idea of a free school was not greeted with great enthusiasum initially. However, they were told in no uncertain terms that the LA's hands were tied and that they could not provide a community school as Central Covernment has decreed that Free Schools would get priority. Barnet are a Conservative Council and they are not in the habit of standing up for the people of N2. There were 2 free school providers who were looking for sites in Barnet - both were faith schools. The concept of supporting the existing schools and encouraging them to evolve and expand was largely supported, but there was one key problem. There is simply nowhere near enough non denominational provision for girls in the area. There is a real, and recognised problem in this London Borough. The local boys school (now academy!) where both my step sons attended, is steadfast in its refusal to become coeducational, although it does have a mixed sixth form. I would love to send my daughter to a local, non denominational school but there simply isn't one. Not even a failing one. I believe that if there was one a significant number of the group would be more than happy to bring their engage wholeheartedly in efforts to improve it for the greater good, but there is simply not that option.

It was, I believe with a degree of reluctance that this group of parents started this process, but they had no choice. I am still not comfortable with the Free School principle. In theory a good LEA should have the expertise, experience and overview to best provide for the vast majority of children within the Borough. However, in practical terms this is not going to happen in this borough before the intake of 2013 are looking for school places for their own children. It is not an ideal situation, but life rarely is - but this group should be respected for not just accepting the status quo, for not deserting the area and for trying to make a positive difference to the community.

Quite frankly some of the bile that has been vented is quite shameful.

Just to say, that whatever motivates those who set up free schools, the comments by frindsbury and TJCDN2 offer a real insight into precisely how the Conservatives at national and local level are smashing up universal school provision. This is sale of council houses all over again: a deliberate undermining and breaking of the social contract we have with each other, that we can together provide for all of us, all our needs. In its place, it does indeed ask, demand and coerce people into individualistic 'solutions'.

These two posts tell a story that is going on right now, in an increasing number of localities and gives a much, much better picture of reality than is on offer from the media. How ironic that the Tories love to accuse socialists of 'social engineering' but the picture painted by these two is indeed of a new form of social engineering: deliberate witholding of resources and talent in order to squeeze supporters of the comprehensive system into this new one.

It's like starving a vegetarian into eating meat.

----------------------------------------------

My earlier comment on this thread was as follows:

At the heart of this story is someone telling us that a group of people have given up on a concept: state run education with that 'running' channelled through local authorities. As it happens this concept has never been quite as unified as I have suggested. First, (1944) because of the perceived power of the vested interests of religion and/or merchant companies various categories of school succeeded in hanging on to a different status: 'voluntary controlled' , 'voluntary aided', 'foundation', 'direct grant' and the like. In recent years, first New Labour and now the Tories have exploited these divisions creating a batch of yet more different status schools: CTC's, yet more 'faith schools', federations and Academies. Meanwhile, whole chunks of schooling are about to be handed over (in effect, sold) to large media corporations. The 'free' schools are just another part of this fragmentation.

What has taken shape then is a surrender of the idea that it is the state-plus-local-authority's problem to educate the whole cohort, locality by locality. As we know, it is no longer this system of state plus local authority's problem to run water, the railways, health, or social housing. So what is the guiding principle we are left with? In essence, competition. Each unit within education will have to find customers, and deliver a service based on its ability to score on a set of tests which in turn have no evidence backing up their professed intentions (eg to produce literacy). Supreme state power lies in the hands of the office of the Secretary of State for Education who has found recently that he does indeed have the power to close schools, dismiss governing bodies and so on.

So we have Napoleon at the top, multinationals buying up the curricula, businesses competing against each other in the locality each claiming a sector of the population, one having the Catholics, another having the Jews, another having the evangelicals, another having the walking worried and so on. And we know for certain that this system will be worse overall at educating the children of the uneducated, worse at enabling children discover that it is indeed possible for people of different cultures and a degree of social class variance to get along, and (as others have said above) that it is possible to put in effort as a parent both individually with one's own children and with a local authority school for a greater good of some kind.

It will take some years for the new kinds of social and academic segregation to shake out, a few years for the stats to emerge but I have no doubt in my mind that what is happening will simply sharpen and accentuate how a class society (in the marxist sense) manages to entrench and reinforce and reproduce class within education. No, I don't for one moment think that education has ever overcome those class divisions but what is taking place will quite soon shake down to these being made yet more clearly defined and controlled by education than they have been in recent years.

In spite of the fact that we very nearly all go to school, the social structuring of schooling as a whole is quite mysterious and difficult to grasp. I'm not for one moment going to say I've grasped it all either. However, I'm damn certain that we are in the midst of the greatest changes since 1944 - much greater than the incomplete comprehensivisation programme.

Dear Michael,
I’m just about to complete my 33rd year in the world of education. I’ve had all manner of roles – Reception Class teacher, Deputy Headteacher, Primary Advisory Teacher at the wonderful CLPE, teacher trainer at Homerton College, Cambridge and a variety of other stuff. I’ve met you a couple of times, although I don’t expect you to remember – I gave you a lift to Cambridge station last year and we had a chat about Arsenal’s back four. Longer ago you presented certificates to my thrilled and excited group of Teaching Assistants in the London Borough of Newham and chatted to each one of them as photos were taken by proud relatives. Anyway, enough of memory lane.

I now work for myself, most especially so that I can speak my own mind, as an independent Education Consultant across the UK and occasionally, beyond. In all my years in education, I can’t remember a time when I have thought government policy on literacy to be so terribly wrong or where such dreadful things are being done in the name of teaching reading . You seem to be a voice of sanity in a world that otherwise seems to have gone mad, so I felt it appropriate to share my thoughts.

I’ve taught children to read with a wide array of methods; from Janet and John (back in 1979, when quite honestly I didn’t know any better, and the first word all the kids read was aeroplane) via The Gay Way (now called The New Way for obvious reasons) through to my last school where we taught (yes, taught) using high quality picture books. Biff and Chip were packed off to The Gambia in black bin bags. (I often wonder what they made of them there). I won’t ever forget that time – Reception Class children talked confidently about their favourite authors and illustrators, Anthony Browne was pretty much king of the book corner and parents came in asking for ‘the book with the poem about the nappy in’ – a direct result of multiple readings of Eddie and the nappy (their particular favourite was the bit where cream got slapped on his bum!!!).

In my work I meet a vast array of folk – pretty much all of them want the best for the children in their care, I think. But, what seems to be lacking is the courage and the confidence to fight for what’s best for those children, particularly when it comes to reading. Let me give you an example. Last week, during a course that I was running, a Reception Class Teacher bemoaned the fact that ‘there never seemed to be any time for storytime...’ In response to this I asked the group to list what story was good for, and why storytime is an absolute necessity. Their reason for NOT doing story....?. The fact that they ‘had to’ do 20 minutes phonics per day.

I find this unbelievable. We live in a golden age of children’s picture book writing, with names like Mini Grey, Emily Gravett and Oliver Jeffers adding their names to the list of long established favourites, Browne, Burningham, Kitamura, Ross and the like. When I visit schools in a support role, it is rare to see a book corner that promotes or inspires a love of reading. Books are jammed into wooden trolleys like prisoners in cells – in some schools children aren’t allowed to have books with words until they know all their sounds. Many book corners are barren wastelands, particularly in places where the Schools Library Service no longer exists. [my bolding Ed. Please note folks, that whenever I state this sort of thing from my own experience, it is denied by someone from the 'intensive systematic synthetic phonics' school. 'Children not allowed to have books with words in that the children can't decode? Nonsense,' they cry. However, look at the Draft (daft) Primary Curriculum Proposals and it is quite clear that the reading in Year 1 is supposed to be phased in such a way that it moves through a progression of decodable texts. That is precisely how some headteachers and senior management teams will interpret that instruction and/or be directed to do so by the absurd Phonics Screening Check. Ed. ] It seems that in the rush to ‘raise standards’ the very professionals that we need to educate, inform and inspire teachers, are slipping off the educational lansdscape. I can recall heady days when whole days’ training was given over to the book corner, or the use of picture books and teachers were enriched and enlivened by interacting with quality texts. I incorporate children’s literature into every course that I run, and people always say what a pleasure it is to get to know more good books.

To return to the children – the most important people in schools, without a doubt. The inappropriate pressure on them is immense. Four year olds are ‘ability grouped’ according to how many phonemes they know because teachers cannot argue a case against this. Nursery Teachers are being asked to ‘teach them all their sounds before they get to Reception’. There are surely better things for Nursery Children to be doing. Nowhere in all my work on Child Development was the word phoneme even mentioned – how did we ever get by without it, I wonder...? [my bolding Ed.]

I should point out at this juncture that I did teach all the children I ever worked with letter/sound correspondences. However, this was done with pleasure and working with children’s inherent fascination for personally significant words – their names, family names and the names of their friends. A collection of high quality alphabet books was read and re-read – NOT because we HAD to, but because children couldn’t get enough of Animalia by Graeme Base or Ruth Brown’s Four Tongued Alphabet. We made alphabet books too – because bookmaking meaningfully combines all areas of literacy in a way that makes sense to children. Segmenting was something you did with an orange and blending part of the process by which you made soup – they certainly weren’t cornerstones of reading behaviour.

And as if all this wasn’t enough – we have the Year 1 Screening Check. Like you, I am at a loss to see what it tests, actually. Last year I was observing in a Reception Class and the teacher was ‘doing phonics’. Gold coins spun in front of the children’s eyes on the interactive whiteboard to form three letter words; some ‘real’ some ‘not real’, although how children are supposed to distinguish between real and not real is beyond me. The theme of pirates is supposed to make it ‘fun’. Children had to give thumbs up if the word was real, thumbs down if it wasn’t. (To be honest, the thought of Christians and Lions was uppermost in my mind at this juncture, but I digress). A little boy called Archie gave ‘thumbs up’ to a word that adults would know didn’t exist. The teacher asked him (very kindly) why he’d given the word the thumbs up. ‘Well, I thought it might be a word that I didn’t know yet,’ he replied. Where is the room in the test for answers like that?
And as for the impact on spelling. I looked at some writing done by children at the end of Reception Year recently. ‘I’ was spelled ai, ay ie, iy – oh and yes, occasionally ‘I’. [ my bolding. Ed.] I find this example of children trying to apply knowledge which they have learned is high stakes, in such an inappropriate way a real cause for concern. When did we stop working with children’s fascinations for language? (probably round about the same time the Literacy Hour came in, I suspect.)

As other correspondents to you have noted, I know Year 1 teachers whose ‘Level 3’ Readers have ‘failed’ the phonics check, reading 'storm' for 'strom', and 'the end' for 'Thend'. In some ways I am reassured by these children who have proved that you can’t legislate against children’s natural desire to make sense of what they read and who truly understand what reading is good for. On the other hand, the fact that their parents will have received a letter informing them of such ‘failure’ is weep making. [ my bolding. Ed ]

Most folk understand that children who have an over-dependence on phonics as a tool for reading lack the capacity to read for meaning. The cynic inside me thinks that this would suit most politicians down to the ground. Let’s reduce the ability of the populace to be critically literate – then no policies will be questioned or debated, because folk will have given up bothering to read the stuff.

The teaching profession is disempowered because initial training courses have been reduced to the bare minimum – no time to reflect on giants of the education world, such as Bruner, Vygotsky and the like. All over the country Advisory Teams are being disbanded, their places being taken by a motley crew of ‘Pied Pipers’ – ever so willing to play a tune (for the right price) and lead teachers and therefore the children to goodness knows where. One can only hope that some folk hang back – unwilling to follow the rest.
Thank you for reading this Michael, I love your blog, if there is any way I can add my voice to yours let me know. Meanwhile, I’ll keep recommending your blog on every course that I run. Keep saying what you do – you write with an intelligence and a confidence that I genuinely admire.

About Me

I write poetry, stories, articles and the words for picture books. I used to teach at the University of North London (later London Metropolitan), Birkbeck, University of London and the the Institute of Education in London. I am now Professor of Children's Literature at Goldsmiths, University of London where I've helpeddevelop an MA in Children's Literature which has been running since September 2014.
I present a radio programme called 'Word of Mouth' on BBC Radio 4. I also visit schools where I do a kind of children' or family stand-up comedy, one-man poetry show and often follow these up with workshops for teachers or children on writing and reading.
My complete list of published books is here: http://literature.britishcouncil.org/michael-rosen
My website is here:
www.michaelrosen.co.uk